If the successful tender has been made by continuing the bidding date without notifying interested parties who reported their rights prior to the public notice of the bidding date, whether there is a legitimate ground for appeal against the decision to permit the successful tender.

If the report of rights by the interested parties was made before the date of bidding and the notification procedure for other interested parties is completed, the auction court's continuation of the auction procedure without notifying the interested parties of the bidding date and making the successful bid successful bidding be made is a legitimate ground for appeal against the decision of permission for successful bidding.

Articles 617(2), 633 subparag. 1, and 641 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 70Ma878 Dated January 13, 1971 (Law No. 19~Civil13) 84Ma266, 84MaKa39 Dated September 27, 1984 (Gong1985,16)

Re-appellant

Suwon District Court Order 94Ra299 Dated February 9, 1995

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged that the re-appellant reported the right after the completion of both the announcement of the fourth bidding date and the notification procedure to interested parties, and dismissed the re-appellant's appeal on the ground that the auction court did not separately notify the re-appellant of the fourth bidding date.

If a report on a right is made after the public notice of the bidding date and the notification procedure to interested parties is completed, it is natural that such interested parties cannot be deemed illegal even if they did not notify the auction date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 70Ma878, Nov. 13, 1971). However, according to the records, the date of public notice by posting a document stating the matters of public notice of the fourth bidding date on the court bulletin board is Nov. 14, 1994; and the date of public notice of bidding date to interested parties is contrary to the fact that the re-appellant's report on the right was made on the 8th of the same month prior to that date.

Thus, the auction court's dismissal of the appeal by the re-appellant can not be maintained illegally, because the auction court continued the auction procedure for the fourth bidding date without notifying the re-appellant who is an interested party, and the successful bid is a legitimate ground for appeal against the decision of successful bid permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 84Ma266, 84MaKa39, Sept. 27, 1984).

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)